4 ms·

> so slaves worked the plantations on the island before 1838. Yes, they were freed by the British and compensated in 1833. As they were post removal in 68. 183

> so slaves worked the plantations on the island before 1838. Yes, they were freed by the British and compensated in 1833. As they were post removal in 68. 1838 was the year they were working in Chagos on 2 year rolling contracts (as was common for non enslaved people in such businesses prior to 1833). > so slaves worked the plantations on the island before 1838. And they were brought there by the british & french mainly. The french & dutch inhabited it first, before any of these people's ancestors. > and as an aside, what do you mean by Marxist terminology? I didn't see "proletariat" or "bourgeoisie," nor workers seizing the means of production. it's sloppy and lazy to use "Marxism" as a catch-all bogeyman. Ignoring history by framing everything as a class/exploitation problem rather than looking at what really happened. It's very common to ignore history now and use feelings to assert because someone might have been exploited that overrides reality.

MrsPeaches 4y ago
> And they were brought there by the british & french mainly. So were slaves in the Caribbean. Should they not have rights to the islands on which they have lived for generations? It’s pretty simple: They were taken from their homes as slaves. They were forced to work in plantations for generations. Slavery ended but they had no “home” to return to and called the island where they had settled home. Whether they were forcible taken there doesn’t suddenly mean it’s not their home. > because someone might have been exploited Can we just be super clear that we are talking about former slaves here. As much as might like to talk about “compensation” (source??) these are people who were taken from their homes as slaves, transported across vast oceans and forced to work in generally pretty horrible conditions. There is no “might have been exploited” here, they were very clearly exploited in an extreme way.
- easytiger 4y ago
  > Can we just be super clear that we are talking about former slaves here. Most of the population are descended from people who arrived subsequent to the abolition of slavery. And any former slaves died 150 years ago
WeylandYutani 4y ago
Actually real history has always been about class and exploitation. JFC you said it yourself Mauritius was a slave colony! The British weren't there for the weather. Nothing Marxist about understanding the human condition- people suck.
pessimizer 4y ago
Making a claim that all Europeans have a better claim to Mauritius than the people and the descendants of the people who lived there, because some Europeans started plantations there (that they then imported to Mauritians to work themselves to death on) is a bizarre racial claim. You're claiming that all Europeans, by virtue of being of the race that discovered an island, have a better claim to the island than its forced residents. I don't know how you can claim to be the reasonable one here.
- easytiger 4y ago
  What laid the basis for Indo-Mauritians population (majority of extant population) largely emigrated to there subsequent to the abolition of slavery. Over simplification of what were undoubtable moral affronts doesn't help a rational view of history. Franco-Mauritians still indeed exist in small but wealthy numbers. > Making a claim that all Europeans have a better claim to Mauritius than the people and the descendants of the people who lived there I'm saying in linear time they indeed have an earlier claim. I say it because the term in relation to the relocated people of Chagos is often that they are "indigenous". Which isn't true
  - MrsPeaches 4y ago
    > majority of extant population Indo - 66% Afro - 28% https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Mauritius https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Mauritius This is common breakdown of places that were slave colonies that needed labour after the end of slavery during Empire (e.g. Guyana, Surinam).
    - easytiger 4y ago
      That is indeed what i said. And contrary to the previous point
    - npinterview 4y ago
      It should be noted that these replacements were also bonded labourers, which is just PC slavery.

MrsPeaches 4y ago

> And they were brought there by the british & french mainly. So were slaves in the Caribbean. Should they not have rights to the islands on which they have lived for generations? It’s pretty simple: They were taken from their homes as slaves. They were forced to work in plantations for generations. Slavery ended but they had no “home” to return to and called the island where they had settled home. Whether they were forcible taken there doesn’t suddenly mean it’s not their home. > because someone might have been exploited Can we just be super clear that we are talking about former slaves here. As much as might like to talk about “compensation” (source??) these are people who were taken from their homes as slaves, transported across vast oceans and forced to work in generally pretty horrible conditions. There is no “might have been exploited” here, they were very clearly exploited in an extreme way.

easytiger 4y ago
> Can we just be super clear that we are talking about former slaves here. Most of the population are descended from people who arrived subsequent to the abolition of slavery. And any former slaves died 150 years ago

WeylandYutani 4y ago

Actually real history has always been about class and exploitation. JFC you said it yourself Mauritius was a slave colony! The British weren't there for the weather. Nothing Marxist about understanding the human condition- people suck.

pessimizer 4y ago

Making a claim that all Europeans have a better claim to Mauritius than the people and the descendants of the people who lived there, because some Europeans started plantations there (that they then imported to Mauritians to work themselves to death on) is a bizarre racial claim. You're claiming that all Europeans, by virtue of being of the race that discovered an island, have a better claim to the island than its forced residents. I don't know how you can claim to be the reasonable one here.

easytiger 4y ago
What laid the basis for Indo-Mauritians population (majority of extant population) largely emigrated to there subsequent to the abolition of slavery. Over simplification of what were undoubtable moral affronts doesn't help a rational view of history. Franco-Mauritians still indeed exist in small but wealthy numbers. > Making a claim that all Europeans have a better claim to Mauritius than the people and the descendants of the people who lived there I'm saying in linear time they indeed have an earlier claim. I say it because the term in relation to the relocated people of Chagos is often that they are "indigenous". Which isn't true
- MrsPeaches 4y ago
  > majority of extant population Indo - 66% Afro - 28% https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Mauritius https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Mauritius This is common breakdown of places that were slave colonies that needed labour after the end of slavery during Empire (e.g. Guyana, Surinam).
  - easytiger 4y ago
    That is indeed what i said. And contrary to the previous point
  - npinterview 4y ago
    It should be noted that these replacements were also bonded labourers, which is just PC slavery.